“In the name of the best within you, do not sacrifice this world to those who are its worst. In the name of the values that keep you alive, do not let your vision of man be distorted by the ugly, the cowardly, the mindless in those who have never achieved his title. Do not lose your knowledge that man’s proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark, in the hopeless swamps of the approximate, the not-quite, the not-yet, the not-at-all. Do not let the hero in your soul perish, in lonely frustration for the life you deserved, but have never been able to reach. Check your road and the nature of your battle. The world you desired can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible, it’s yours.” – JOHN GALT

Exposing a Statist’s Parliamentary Megalomania

Many freedom-loving individuals, particularly those in Europe, now clearly grasp the runaway and seemingly insatiable megalomania of the unelected globalist politicians of the European parliament. Also, we all know how the megalomaniac politicians in Europe destroyed the economies of their countries and unduly delegated too much power to Europe’s totalitarian parliament. Too much power creates, or encourages, megalomaniacs with statist-collectivist, evil political agenda.

In most cases, politicians do not simply acquire unbridled political power by default or by virtue of their political positions. It is the existence of a weak, collectivist political system that arrogates power to scheming politicians with mostly well-intentioned political agenda. However, in politics, good intention or good will is a non-virtue or immaterial. Political realities now show us how a weak, statist form of government encourages politicians to push for their welfare-state agenda and socialistic policies. In Europe, it is its parliamentarism or parliamentary system that delivers most European countries toward socialism or dictatorship. This is not to say or argue that any other systems like presidentalism is preferable to parliamentarism. A proper form of government is needed to support freedom and rights. However, many political analysts observe that parliamentarism is usually associated with socialism. Why is this the case? It’s because the system permits socialist/statist politicians to swiftly and easily push for their radical political agenda via parliamentary votes. This is what happened in Venezuela when Hugo Chavez’s parliament voted for the passage of a new constitution that paved the way for the country’s near-socialism or complete socialism.

Observe that political megalomaniacs in history rooted for political system and form of government that gave them too much political power. The globalists in Europe established parliamentary regimes and systems that later on bypassed and ignored the will of their people. For instance, many parliamentary regimes established a global parliament with sweeping, broadly undefined political powers. We now understand that it’s the globalist European parliament that is destroying many economies in Europe through highly interventionist politico-economic edicts that disregard national sovereignty, destructive tax laws, restrictions and protectionism, global cronyism, and other statist laws and welfare systems that destroy individual freedom and choice.

In the Philippines, a lot of people- mostly power-lusting politicians, clueless journalists, politically naive ‘intellectuals’, and leftist/statist professors- buy and support the parliamentary dogma, as they embrace a culture of ignorance that promotes evil ‘isms’ and welfare policies. A lot of ordinary citizens also take the political gibberish and demagoguery of these pro-parliamentarism ideologues on faith. To support their parliamentary dogma, these clueless ideologues point to the so-called many studies and peer-reviewed papers conducted mostly by leftist and liberal academics who simply used flawed methodologies, distorted conceptual framework, and very crude analysis.

One of these clueless, megalomaniac ideologues is the owner of a statist group called CoRRECT Movement. His name is Orion Pérez Dumdum, whose statist movement masquerading as pro-capitalism has been brazenly promoting his three-point political agenda, namely, economic liberalization, evolving federalism, and parliamentary system. If you’re not critical enough, you might think that Dumdum’s absurd movement is in favor of capitalism and individual freedom. Even a few well-meaning individuals who believe in individualism and capitalism had been successfully hoodwinked by his group.

The term ‘megalomania’ came from fellow blogger and free marketer Nonoy Oplas who heads the free-market think tank Minimal Government Thinkers. In this post, Oplas calls Orion “megalomaniac mind”, saying: “One MUST sing alleluiah to parliamentarism because it is a heavenly desirably orgasmic type of government; otherwise, one will get the above inferno of intolerance from cultist Orion.”

Here, I try to deconstruct the megalomaniac fuhrer’s delusional statements. In fact, his delirious statements actually resonate with Romania’s Ceauşescu’s and his wife’s frantic cries when they finally faced their angry executioners.

Orion: “It’s like a bear cursing the BEES for stinging him when he sticks a branch into their beehive!”

Translation — How dare you attack my group. We’re strong and united. And you’re nothing. We are the collective. My collective.

Orion: “If you stir a hornet’s nest, you should expect to get stung! And when you do, IT IS NOT THE HORNETS’ FAULT!”

Translation— If you attack my group, my blind followers would fight back, and they’re ready to fight for their dear leader.

Orion: “Accept your fault and do not curse the hornets for protecting their turf. You knew what you were getting into!”

Translation— You should feel sorry for attacking my group. You’re nothing. My group is untouchable. You can’t defeat my group. My blind followers (bees) are ready to fight for me.

Orion: “You attacked my advocacy in my own group, and I didn’t censure you at all… I CORRECTED YOUR MISTAKEN IDEAS and issued REBUTTALS to your attacks.”

Translation: You should be thankful that I tried to indoctrinate you the way I did to my blind followers. I tried to teach you my gospel, which you rejected. Shame on you.

A few hours after Oplas published his blog article, Orion went berserk and posted the following gibberish on his site:

I have tried hard to form alliances with these two people in the past.

But unfortunately, they each have their own ego issues. I speak not with any rancor nor any desire to cast aspersions on their characters, but I speak simply with the intention of clarifying any misconceptions that people may have…

Both Froilan Bersamina and Nonoy Oplas contend that a country needs ONLY ONE SILVER BULLET: A Free Market – Minimal Government paradigm. That’s all you need, according to them. For them, everything is about individual rights ONLY. No group rights. No such thing as the need for considering the “majority” or people as groups.

We at CoRRECT, on the other hand, maintain that while we need to have a FREE MARKET economic system along with the principles of private enterprise and letting government do only those things that private enterprise cannot and will not do, we also realize that we need to fix the errors of this country.

As such, we have an overly centralized-around-Manila system which can only be fixed through an evolving Federalism…

That post simply exposes Orion as a pathological liar. As expected, Orion has been busy throwing tantrums like a 3-year-old kid. And as usual, based on his egotism (not egoism), megalomaniac character and manipulative behavior, he’s now playing the VICTIM CARD. Impliedly he’s telling his mindless “bees” that he’s the ‘VICTIM’.

I offer the following rebuttal to his usually contradictory, fallacious, error-filled gibberish:

Of course, a free market government is what we need… and then everything follows. The system of government follows. The constitutional framework follows. The national culture or mindset follows. The economic policies follow.

“For them, everything is about individual rights ONLY.” ABSOLUTELY. The issue of freedom is all about individual rights. A free market system is founded on the most noble notion that YOU OWN YOUR LIFE. You own your life and you are responsible for it. Individualism is all about personal responsibility and the responsibility to respect the rights of others. Your life is not owned by the state, by society, by your family, by your political party, or by god. You own it. It’s yours to enjoy, to improve, or even to dispose of.

“No group rights.” There’s no such thing as “group rights”, STUPID! The evil notion of group rights or collective rights is the basis of all collectivist, socialist systems in human history. It means that somebody or something (e.g., society, political party, state, or god) owns your life. It means that you have the DUTY to share your life, liberty and property with somebody or with ‘something’ for the sake of the greater good. What Morion fails to understand is the very simple fact that IF YOU RESPECT THE RIGHTS OF A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL, YOU RESPECT THE RIGHT OF ALL OR EVERYBODY. Joining a group, a collective, or any gang or political party does not make your rights superior to the rights of others. Group rights is, without a doubt, EVIL, immoral, and indefensible. Group rights is what all tyrants and dictators in the past preached (although they used different labels or terms like collective right, greater good, summum bonum, collectivism, social justice, etc.) like Napoleon Bonaparte, Otto von Bismarck, Adolf Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Kim Jong Il, among others.

The rest is a flagrant, megalomaniac display of stupidity.Orion Dum-dum has this habit of throwing incomprehensible gibberish (pardon me if I’m being redundant) pockmarked with lots of fallacies and baseless assumptions.

To show that I’ve been very consistent with my attack on Orion’s statist, evil ideas, not his miserable person, I posted the following statement on a Facebook group also critical of Orion’s political lunacy.

3. He doesn’t understand that MAIN difference between presidentialism and parliamentarism. That makes him a welfare statist. He likes parliamentarism because it can easily and quickly pass welfare legislation. Genuine advocates of capitalism strongly believe that laws should not be easily and quickly passed. https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2011/12/12/welfare-state-and-parliamentarism/

7. His empty, sophomoric articles suggest that the Philippine presidential system is written in stone that it can neither be fixed nor replaced with a better, more pro-capitalist presidential system. Thus he suggests or even argues that it can only be replaced with a parliamentary type of government. It seems that he doesn’t know that there are many types of presidential systems and parliamentary systems. Each country has its own presidential type of government. https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2011/07/23/basic-principles-for-presidential-type-of-government/

8. He’s got this pathetic habit of appealing to authority. That means he’s incapable of forming his own independent thought and judgment. What’s funnier is- and it seems he’s not aware of this- most of those authorities he cited are leftists, liberals or welfare statists like Fareed Zakaria, Riggs, etc. https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2011/08/22/fareed-zakarias-parliamentary-drivel/

9. He doesn’t have enough brain cells to understand that it’s the nation’s political system and basic constitutional principles that can make or break a society. A pro-capitalist, pro-freedom POLITICAL SYSTEM requires a FORM OF GOVERNMENT (which should be presidential) that supports the concept and principles of 1) minimal government, 2) free market system, 3) objective rule of law, and 4) individualist concept of rights.

Are these what Orion call “defamatory”? To Orion, it’s “defamatory” if you objectively criticize his parliamentary idiocy. Who the heck is this guy to accuse anyone who criticizes his INCORRECT movement of DEFAMATION? He doesn’t even know the legal meaning of “defamation”.

“Scumbug hyper ego”. That’s a good description. This will be my last post about him. He doesn’t make any sense at all. I’d like to think he’s sick in the mind. lol

Anyway here’s his latest funny post at his ‘lungga':

“Anyway, CoRRECTors (yes, even the MOLES and SPIES who are here), you can always point out to FAROL and all the detractors firstly that they have ALL SUCCUMBED to the idiotic Pinoy tendency to care too much about WHO IS SAYING THE MESSAGE rather than looking at WHAT IS BEING SAID.

“No one – absolutely no one – has ever been able to issue a real rebuttal against the CoRRECT Three Point Agenda. NO ONE.

“In fact, when misinformed souls like Oplas, Farol, Froi, et al all try to go against whatever I say, they always grasp at straws in trying to defy logic by engaging in convoluted rhetoric and contortionism just to attempt to make black look white and make white look black.”

You’re the one who’s sick in the mind Froilan… You’re the one who gets angry when you’re proven wrong all the time.

Remember when you had absolutely no ability to refute the fact that countries using Parliamentary Systems generally came out on top of so many Economic indices such as GDP per capita, Ease of Doing Business, Property Rights Protection Index, Least Proneness to Corruption (CPI), Economic Freedom Index, etc?

You went haywire. You went berserk, Froi. That’s because you didn’t realize that Parliamentary Systems really do outperform Presidential Systems.

See, Froi? You were way too biased for the USA. You thought that everything was “USA.” But you didn’t realize that there are so many countries that use Parliamentary Systems who do way better than the USA.

You know what’s the only point about the USA? It just happens to be the Largest Economy in the World. That’s just it. But in terms of GDP per capita, it’s not really doing that well when compared to other developed countries.

And in a list of Developed countries, it usually sticks out (somewhere around number 9 or lower) as the only Presidential System in a sea of Parliamentary Systems.

What happens when you look at all the worst-performing countries in the world? You find most of them are Presidential Systems.

You see your problem, Froi?

You’re way too quick to make wrong conclusions.

Next time, you ought to do some real serious research. You need to read up.

Oh, and please learn other languages too. English is not the only language you can get really great sources of knowledge from.

Some of the best Free Market materials I found were in Spanish. Why?

That’s because of the work of one of the most tireless evangelists of the Free Market message: the late Dr. Manuel Ayau.

Ever heard of him? Of course not. You’re too infatuated with Rand to even care about Ayau or even Hayek.

The article is wrong. Venezuela is presidential, not parliamentary. Hugo Chavez is not responsible to legislature in the same way a prime minister is. Venezuela does not even have a prime minister. Hugo Chavez is a president in a very presidential sense – that is, he is both the head of state AND the head of government. He is also elected directly by universal suffrage, rather than being elected by the legislature as is done in a parliamentary system.

I suggest that you stop being stubborn and realize that some of the most Socialistic and most Communist-leaning countries of the world happen to be Presidential System-using countries in Latin America.

Whereas some of the most Free-Market and most “minimalist in government” in terms of low income taxes are Singapore and Malaysia (yes, the tax rates in both are very low) and their economies are very open (albeit Malaysia has specific restrictions for cars, but otherwise in other sectors they’re very open) and both are Parliamentary System-using.

You just simply need to read more and do more research.

The problem with you, Froi, is that you are arrogant and you have no desire to learn new things. You think that the USA is the greatest country in the world, but you have failed to look at all the international indices that tend to show the USA as simply being one among many developed countries in the world. It’s not even the best among them. It doesn’t even do well in the GDP per capita category, the property rights protection index, the economic freedom index, the ease of doing business index and many more. Instead, countries using Parliamentary Systems OUTPERFORM the USA in all those indices.

If you look carefully, most of the time, it’s only the USA who is the only Presidentialist country in the top 20 or top 30 list and oftentimes, it’s not even in the top 5 or top 10! The USA just isn’t doing as well as it should.
You have to learn more about the world OUTSIDE OF THE USA and outside of the Philippines, Froi.

You need to broaden your horizons and stupid being stubborn and closed-minded.

You have read more of HAYEK’s writings and realize that in effect, F.A. Hayek described his ideal system as essentially a PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM because he preferred to have a lower house that was EXECUTIVE and a weaker non-executive upper-house that was purely legislative.
And that, Froi (and Oplas) IS WHAT A bicameral PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM IS.

Parliamentary Systems that are bicameral feature a stronger lower house from where the Cabinet, the Ministers, and the Prime Minister come from, while the upper house is usually of a “weaker” and purely legislative and advisory capacity.

Once again, read up… Who was the leader of Venezuela: Hugo Chávez.
What was his position? PRESIDENTE DE LA REPÚBLICA.
He was not a Prime Minister.

Now that he died, who is the guy who is his successor?
Nicolás Maduro… What is the position he (Maduro) and his challenger Capriles were running for?

PRESIDENTE DE LA REPÚBLICA.
See? Venezuela is a PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM, not a Parliamentary System.

* *

Both you guys need to learn Spanish. The problem is that you guys are so limited in your linguistic abilities that you are limited only to English and Tagalog news. (Ok, Oplas, you have Cebuano too, I think)

But if you guys learned Spanish well enough to converse and discuss in it, then you would have access to some of the BASES FOUNDATION’s and HAYEK FOUNDATION’s lectures about Hayek’s implicit recommendation of the Parliamentary System.

Read up, Froilan. Read up. You too, Oplas. Read up and do some research.

Do not limit yourselves only to Rand. Read more about HAYEK and his views too, including Hayek’s views on what system of government he considered to be ideal.

Quack parliamentarist:“There is a clear correlation between parliamentarism and economic growth as evidenced by many progressive countries that apply the system. The conclusion is, we must adopt parliamentarism because it is the cause of economic growth.”

What do these two quack ‘thinkers’ stupidly or intentionally omit from the equation: The principles of economic freedom and limited government…

“Venezuela is a federal presidential republic[1] governed by a constitution. The chief executive is President of Venezuela who is both head of state and head of government, and of a multi-party system. Executive power is exercised by the President. Legislative power is vested in the National Assembly.” –wiki

For the record, Froilan, the official name of the pre-Chavez legislature in Venezuela was the CONGRESS (Congreso), which was divided between a SENATE (upper house) and a Chamber of Deputies (lower house)
The official name of the post-1999 Chavez Constitution legislature in Venezuela is the NATIONAL ASSEMBLY which is purely unicameral.
At no point in time did Venezuela ever refer to its legislature as a PARLIAMENT.

The news source you read it from, Froilan, was using the term “parliamentary” when it actually meant “legislative.”

You were wrong to assume that Venezuela is Parliamentary. Very wrong.

* *

Oh, and you were being trolled by someone who was pretending to be me. That fake “Orion” got a few facts right, though: he’s right that Venezuela is Presidential and not Parliamentary.

Remember: I have a photo of myself on my gravatar, The E on my Pérez has an accent, and my IP ADDRESS is traceable to Singapore.

Some news agencies use the word “parliamentary” when what they mean is “legislative.” The word “parliament” is another term for “legislature” and sometimes, the word is used to refer to the legislature of a country that uses a Presidential System.

Unfortunately, Froilan Bersamina is not a very well-informed person, so the moment he sees the term “parliament” or “parliamentary”, he immediately assumes that the country in question uses a parliamentary system.

What he doesn’t know is that in the Philippines, the term “Parliamentary Immunity” is used to refer to the ability of a member of the legislature (either House or Senate) to speak freely without fear of being prosecuted.

The word doesn’t mean that the system in the Philippines is Parliamentary. It’s just a term where the word “parliamentary” was used interchangeably with “legislative.”

Heck, even some international news agencies have referred to Filipino Congressmen as “Members of Parliament.”

This doesn’t mean that the Philippines has a Parliamentary System. It only means that the term “member of parliament” is actually a generic term.

The problem is that Froilan Bersamina does not know what makes a system Presidential versus Parliamentary.

He doesn’t realize that the LITMUS TEST of finding out whether a country uses a Parliamentary versus a Presidential System is whether the functions of the Head of State and Head of Government are FUSED in one person or divided between two.

Parliamentary Systems:

1) President/Monarch (CEREMONIAL)
2) Prime Minister (Fully Executive)
3) Legislature is both executive and legislative at the same time

Presidential System

1) President is BOTH CEREMONIAL AND FULLY EXECUTIVE
2) Legislature is purely legislative and has no executive powers

Unfortunately, Froilan thinks that mere mention of the word “Parliamentary” EVEN IN ERROR (as is the case with many news agencies) makes a country parliamentary.

* *

For the record, Froilan, the official name of the pre-Chavez legislature in Venezuela was the CONGRESS (Congreso), which was divided between a SENATE (upper house) and a Chamber of Deputies (lower house)

The official name of the post-1999 Chavez Constitution legislature in Venezuela is the NATIONAL ASSEMBLY which is purely unicameral.

At no point in time did Venezuela ever refer to its legislature as a PARLIAMENT.

The news source you read it from, Froilan, was using the term “parliamentary” when it actually meant “legislative.”

You forgot to take your medicine, Morion “The Moron” Dumb-Dumb. You’re indeed sick in the mind as what most people say. ;-) You always threaten people who disagree with your idiocy with death. I think you’re really a PSYCHOPATH, not just a MEGALOMANIAC.

everyone forgot the facts:
“Venezuela is a federal presidential republic[1] governed by a constitution. The chief executive is President of Venezuela who is both head of state and head of government, and of a multi-party system. Executive power is exercised by the President. Legislative power is vested in the National Assembly.” –wiki

Everyone forgot the facts that Hugo Chavez is treating his parliament as his parliamentary lackey and go-to-guy. Venezuela’s semi-parliamentary, semi-presidential is just like Marcos’s semi-parliamentary system.

It has come to my attention that someone has been using my name here and posting in order to attack Froilan Vincent Bersamina.

First of all, my Pérez has an ACCENT on the é… Whoever was impersonating me could not produce that.

Secondly, my gravatar has my picture on it.

And Thirdly, my IP ADDRESS is traceable to Singapore.

*

Now…

The fake “Orion” got a few things right, as did GabbyD.

Venezuela does NOT use a Parliamentary System. Venezuela is a hyper-Presidential System.

They also NEVER used the term “Parliament” for their Legislature.

Prior to the late President Hugo Chávez’ 1999 Constitution, Venezuela had a bicameral CONGRESS which had a Senate (state-elected Senators) plus a lower house referred to as the Chamber of Deputies.

After the 1999 Constitution, their legislature became a UNITARY legislature called the “National Assembly”, which was akin to Marcos’ “Batasang Pambansa.”

They do not have a Prime Minister, and instead, they merely have a Speaker of the Assembly, referred to as the “Presidente de la Asamblea Nacional.”

Froilan is wrong because he did not care to understand what makes a parliamentary system and what makes it different from a presidential system.

First of all, Froilan, ALL LATIN-AMERICAN COUNTRIES are Presidential Republics. The only Spanish-speaking country that uses a Parliamentary System is Spain. All other Spanish-speaking countries use Presidential Systems.

You have to realize that the litmus test for knowing what is a Parliamentary System and what is a Presidential System is to look at whether the Leader of the Majority Bloc in the Legislature (aka “The Head of Government”) is given FULL Executive Powers or not. If yes, then it is a Parliamentary System. If FULL Executive Power is given to the elected Head of State, then that’s a Presidential System.

Parliamentary Systems usually have a division between the Head of Government versus the Head of State, where the Head of Government is the leader of the Majority Bloc in the lower house of the Legislature, and where the Head of State is purely CEREMONIAL and POWERLESS.

Presidential Systems, on the other hand, FUSE the position of Head of State and Head of Government to the office of the President, who is not a member of the legislature.

* *

Froilan Vincent Bersamina — and yes, you too Mr. Oplas — you should both learn more about how Parliamentary Systems work and understand that they are actually superior to Presidential Systems.

Read the facts. Read the whitepapers out there.

Even the BASES FOUNDATION (A Free Market Think-Tank in Argentina) collaborates aggressively with the HAYEK FOUNDATION (you two should know who Hayek is) in hosting seminars in Argentina and in the rest of Latin America to promote the adoption of the Parliamentary System in addition to talking about Free Market Economics.

The problem with the both of you (yes, you two: OPLAS and BERSAMINA) is that you do not care to do research on how the Parliamentary System happens to be superior to the Presidential System.

Apparently, the both of you just happen to worship the USA, thinking erroneously that the USA is the “most capitalistic country in the world”, not realizing that consistently, Singapore (a Parliamentary System-using country) has been considered one of the most capitalistic countries in the world, along with many of the Scandinavian countries who might be considered “socialist” by some, but actually score very high on the Economic Freedom indices. (Hong Kong is not a country, so it doesn’t count. Even so, their system is Westminster Parliamentary-derived anyway)

In fact, if you two boys checked out the list of the most Economically-free countries in the world as well as the countries with the strongest protection for property rights, you will see that they are usually PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM-countries.

It doesn’t mean that a country has a parliamentary elections means it was a parliamentary republic/democracy… even our country has parliamentary elections(in 2013)… it was called parliamentary elections for the reason that the term of the legislators who was elected in the last parliamentary elections is done and vacancy occurs in the legislature and needs to be filled again with people to be elected for this election for a fixed term until the next parliamentary elections. It is an election period that was not a presidential election and it also involves such political offices that has a term that was half of the president’s term.